Tomoko thread… why? Because I like the character… and other reasons…
Post lewds (spoilered), memes, edits, pics and anything else related to the subject
>>748>shinji Tomokobased
>Nico Nico Nasty TomokoYou slut
>>756smell is just another dimension
and once you sniff the tumko you will leave to another realm too
>>2496Here's some advice, otaku: self-inserting is a mental disease.
I'm glad the author decided to make Tomoko grow up and get friends, but slowly so as not to seem asspully and without making her turn into a generic girl that has to stop being herself just to fit in Japanese society. Watamote has gotten even better.
>>2725"Self-insert" is so muddled. I've seen it used to mean a certain character archetype itself, the act of literally imagining oneself in the story for wish fulfillment, relating to characters in any way…
Anyway, I'm sure you don't mean to say "don't identify with characters within whom you see an element of yourself", which is actually autistic and contrary to 'how' 'humans' 'respond' 'to' 'fiction' dating all the way back to at least Aristotle.
Certainly you must mean "don't have a psychotic break when you identify less with a character over the course of a story", which is… trivial.
>>3880There is people who literally use this as an argument to attack people who do not like the manga now.
>Hurr you do not like it anymore because TOMOKO is not as spergy and you cannot relate anymoreI agree that it is less funny than before but i still find it enjoyable and Tomoko carries it just like she always did.
Has anyone played the VN that is featured and parodied in the anime>>2051Only if the artist has a fucking idea how to draw them (which is often the case with footfag artists, thankfully)
Most anime artists can't draw for shit
>>731by far the most obnoxious anime avatar
every website i have seen this on it has been attached to most boring posts
i hope the show isn't as trash as it's viewers are
>>4235>the most obnoxious anime avatar<by far
I'm sorry what? how?
>every website i have seen this on it has been attached to most boring postsexamples? I've seen good posts with Tomoko's and bad posts, it's not really about the Avatar, it's just that the general rule is most people on chans aren't effortposters.
>>10662>pic<I'veseenthisguybefore.png>relateable Yeah breddy much.
>manga too long anime too short sort of like Midori Days.
>>10333You know, you see lots of stuff unpleasant stuff browsing chans, and with time a lot of it does not bother even register with you anymore. Seeing that shook me.
>Reading on a bit it came about by literal capitalist profiteeringBecause of course.
>>19538Kinda.
It wasn't hard for her to make friends, she just never learned how to make them since it's assumed you already know how to past elementary school.
>>19570Maybe the same reason that western men, or all men in general, put young feminine women on a pedestal.
They dont want (young feminine) women to "tarnish" their own image with comedy or anything else.
>>19570>Watamote fanbase is 99% WesternThe manga was marketed as "Popular on the overseas version of 2ch" when it got it first volume. The creators even credited westerners for it going past two books.
>or do they don’t like it when a female protag is anything but a perfect kawaii waifu onahole?That's what I think. Otaku want some idolized queen, I saw someone rec some other anime like Bochi in some other sites. Bocchi is too cute, pink haired, moe. Tomoko is angry, an unpleasant person, threatens to kill herself in the first chapter, is very self serving and self obsessed, a pervert not in the typical anime kind but in the way that you know she smells, she makes fun of a fat otaku early on. Not the ideal love interest but still something refreshing to read, even a lot of the modern Japanese fanart seems to be from women, a "she's just like me" character. Otaku don't want that.
>>19574>Deranged /a/utists sent dickpics to the authors of WatamoteThey were /v/irgins, not /a/utists.
>who much like Tomoko, are/were also turbo virgin losers so it’s very likely that some fat channer’s chode was the first penis they saw in their livesUnironically true
>>19576>Can’t recognize penises at first glanceSuch are the consequences of all porn in Japan having genitals pixelated.
Or maybe the penis was really ugly and malformed lmao
>>19578At the time, Watamote was a meme for socially awkward fucks and /v/ ended up nicknaming her "Spaghetti-tan" in reference to the "spaghetti falls out of pocket" greentext stories.
Failwomen in anime and manga used to be a rarity. Compared to now, where we have characters like Hitori "Bocchi" Gotoh, Riamu Yumemi, etc.
>>19582Like that other anon said, those girls all are very conventionally attractive and don’t even come close to the bar set by Tomoko. Hell, Tomoko herself ain’t that ugly aside from her messy hair and grandma sense of fashion.
I don’t think there’s been a 100% accurate portrayal of a true loser female otaku as a protag aside from some doujins.
>>19570>manga was largely ignored until the author startef yuribaitingTo play devil advocate: Kuroki wanting a male harem only to get a female one is pretty funny.
Granted, she could be bi, I just assumed she was only a psycho since of how she'd group one of her few friends constantly>>19576>>19577>>19581Also counter point:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edgy >>19582>>19583The first volume has a picture of Tomoko eating spaghetti because oi it
>Failwomen in anime and manga used to be a rarity. Compared to now, where we have characters like Hitori "Bocchi" Gotoh, Riamu Yumemi, etc.I really don't think they're the same. I don't know much about Bocchi but I know Riamu is a character made to chase the menhara trend. Again they're made really cutesy. Tomoko really was [spoiler]transgressivep[/spoiler] for a time when K-On! was still in very recent memory
>>19583>Hell, Tomoko herself ain’t that ugly aside from her messy hair and grandma sense of fashion.To me she's extremely attractive, but the fact that her hair is black and greasy in a realm where the last most otaku girl was Konata says a lot. And that's excluding the like of Kirino from Oreimo, who was also meant to be an otaku girl
>>19584>Hell, Tomoko herself ain’t that ugly aside from her messy hair and grandma sense of fashion.Hot take but most people that are considered ugly is because of this, just a different haircut, some new style of clothes, some skin care, just staying in the sun a bit, losing/gaining weight or getting muscular and they can look far better than they currently are
Tomoko, Like many people that see themselves as ugly, and don't even give a chance to themselves because low self esteem and no idea where to start.
>>19590yeah.
>>19584thays because society is always sympathetic towards young feminine women.
In fiction, all the "ugly" girls are just bedhair.
IRL, theres real ugly girls, but men dont wanna acknowledge that because they dont csre for it or because whiteknighting.
More "realistic" female losers are usually the ones over thirty-five with kids and fading looks. At least thays how its portrayed in media.
>>19584name said doujins?
>>19591yeah it's bedhair, or being fat (but with giant titties)
>>19617I’m taking about the menhera-chan character that was previously posted. Learn how to read topic chains, thank you please.
>>19616Ditto
>>19625>It’s not commodification if the corporate entity is small!Cope
>>19626Then that’s corporate appropriation of otaku culture, which is even worse!
>>19627the creative team behind idolmaster is "small", but the company that pays them to do it is gigantic.
not that thats relevant i guess, im just saying its silly to complain about commodification in a time when everything gets commodified and almost every action is subject to market forces. hell, the focus on consumption has always been a headass idea and its why the situationists and anything after them has failed.
>>20937Take meds anon, you've not only mixed up what I was saying but you're just spouting buzzwords erratically. I can only hope that you're just childishly misinformed and not a glowie. Thus let me explain to your coping, radlib self:
Consumerism is part of capitalist ideology - it is promoted and pushed because it in turn promotes profit and brainless lowering of standards. Different brands of consumption also sometimes pretend that one form of consumerism is better than another, such as the case of weebs that go bananas for anime merch but simultaneously mock similarly infantile consumption of other brands like capeshit. Thus consumerism is something to be addressed and derided by any actual leftist that isn't a liberal or a wrecker. Moreover consumerism =/= consumption of something in and of itself. By the very fact of media and commodities and personal property existing and being acquirable, people consume something. However that is an action that occurs as part of living and social interaction, not an ideological act.
This ends my TED talk, join me on /edu/ for more.
>>20939>le take your meds le radlib le glowie for one of the most basic marxist pointslol you fucking pseuds can only speak in memes. anti"consumerism" is part of liberal ideology and it necessitates believing in bullshit like ethical consumption too, btw.
MUH CULTURE!!!!!!
>in turn promotes profit and brainless lowering of standardssee, you whine about getting called a liberal and then blame individuals because they didnt vote with their wallet, holy shit dude lmfao
>Moreover consumerism =/= consumption of something in and of itself.ask 10 anticonsumerists where consumption starts becoming consumerism and youll get 10 different answers. completely meaningless and arbitrary babble
anyway im just going to repost what others have said better than me
>Anti-consumerism often comes from a puritanical, anti-modern place. Most quasi-liberal new agey anti-consumer types come across as if they think modern materialism has robbed us of some profound meaning, similarly to this example.>>>/siberia/455228
>Shallow anti-consumerism is an unattractive program and not what the working class needs or deserves to hear. It’s also politically imprecise, just as amenable to reactionary or liberal ends as socialist ones.>>>/siberia/455222
>If you use moralism that lacks historical materialism to provide an explanation for why people are so hyperalienated and estranged from sane and normal society, yes. Hating on "crazy" and "weird" people is literally the praxis of scolding Reaganites, no different than Hillary Clinton calling opiate addicted workers "deplorable" for having false consciousness about anti-immigrants or whatever foolishness.>>>/siberia/455235posting they live is very accurate to this too but not for the reasons you believe rofl
>>21653>Trying to start a schizo-babble 2 months later>posting a pic so the mods don't delete for derail >citing /siberia/ shitposts that have nothing to do with what was postedUnironically KYS or go outside, you clearly are severely disconnected from reality.
>blame individuals because they didnt vote with their wallet Literally not what was said, you burger-brained retard
>you fucking pseuds can only speak in memes <oH nO sOmEoNe UsEd A mAyMaY oN a ImAgEbOaRd! <*proceeds to do the reddit "Le [x]" memeThanks for proving the point that you're a hypocritical, projecting copelet with no understanding of material dialectics or how capitalism attempts to enforce its economic half through social ideology.
>it necessitates believing in bullshit like ethical consumptionNope.
>ask 10 anticonsumerists where consumption starts Literal /pol/ tier "just ask a uyghur" tier non-argument.
>youll get 10 different answers No, you'll get different wordings of the same concept, you dumb faggot.
>MUH CULTURE!!!!!!Isn't that literally what you're screeching about; Your ability to continue your bohemian lifestyle? Because you're so assmad that I can only conclude that you feel attacked over a post that wasn't even replied to you to begin with.
>>21654lol wow every post you make gets more and more intellectually dishonest, i mean look at this shit
>Trying to start a schizo-babble 2 months laterlike i said, its basic marxism. production > consumption. also welcome to imageboards, this isnt a chatroom where things must get talked about quickly
>citing /siberia/ shitposts that have nothing to do with what was posteduh literally all the posts cited have to do with the topic of consumerism
anyway youre still a liberal who still cant define consumerism beyond vague definitions with arbitrary lines. all your replies are putting your hands over your ears and just going "nope" and spouting buzzwords lmao. keep pocket-watching like moralistic neoliberals who blame people for what they buy, thats going to bring the revolution any day
>bohemian lifestyleyoure literally a reaganite
>>21665All of your posts boil down to "Don't ask questions, just consume product and then get excited to consume new product", typical first world retard.
>Everyone that disagrees is the same person!>saging like a coward again>Y-you're dishonest not me!Your pic is a question for yourself
>basic marxism LMAO imagine misinterpreting Marxism this badly, trying to pigeonhole it to fit your retarded porky narrative.
>welcome to imageboards <TFW you've been posting on imageboards longer than some people here have been alive Every post you've made has been replied to immediately, you're the one that waits for months to reply out of sheer seethe, and then sages in the hopes of not getting a reply to your dumb shit. Stop pretending to be an oldfag when you're bitching about meme terminology being used on an Indian dentistry forum.
>production > consumptionYeah no, that's such a blatant oversimplification as to be worthless and neither addresses the argument, nor does it debunk the argument made. Basic Marxism? How about actual Marxism?
>literally all the posts cited have to do with the topic of consumerism<broadening the goal-posts to the point of uselessness. They are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with the points being made: A) consumerism is consumerism, and trying to dickmeasure Japanese stuff over American stuff is retarded
B) Consumerism is an ideology that is pushed by capitalism to encourage greed and commodification and is not the same thing as consumption in and of itself, which is what consumerism exploits to direct the population and propagandize them. Konstantin Syemen speaks about this with a term that translates to "well-fed poverty" wherein the proletariat is still poor and oppressed but able to buy a bunch of meaningless shit which creates the illusion of good living. A modernization on the same old Bread and Circus distraction, something that leftism criticizes, and is a part of what permits capitalist hegemony to promote itself.
>youre still a liberal Repeating your projection and going "No U" after you got called a porky bootlicker does not make your words any more valid than they were before. Take meds, touch grass.
>cant define consumerism More fallacious argumentation. Nowhere was the definition of consumerism asked for in this argument, you didn't even ask the definition from me or prior posters in posts before this one, so your declaration of "you can't define it" is baseless and equivalent to "prove a negative" except stupider since the meaning of the word in this conversation is already known and acknowledged. Even the /siberia/ posts you reference aren't as bad faith to go "ree, you can't define it!"
Also since you're clearly a retard that can't use a browser search, let alone read Society of the Spectacle; Consumerism: the preoccupation of society with the acquisition of consumer goods.
>vague definitions with arbitrary linesNot an argument,
>all your replies are putting your hands over your ears and just going "nope" and spouting buzzwords Nice projector there Kettle.
It's ironic that you claim that I spout buzzwords when you've done this exact thing, addressed none of my or the other anons arguments and then just throw random terminology at the wall, hoping it'll stick
For example
>pocket-watching A slang term referring to spectating the activities of another, specific person; it is irrelevant to this conversation, since the original topic was one subculture dickmeasuring its consumption with another being meaningless when its retarded spectacle regardless. There is no jealousy in such a statement, Since the people buying all this shit like Funko Pops or figurines or dakis aren't rich, and anyone else could buy them, nor is it referring to a specific person. Finally the term pocketwatching is often a method of dismissing criticism by claiming "jealousy" in the same way "whataboutism" is used to dismiss criticism of the United States during the Cold War, even if these terms are on different social scales.
You know none of this, yet still use the word in an attempt to sound smart, and only appear as more of an angry ignoramus for it.
>moralistic neoliberals who blame people for what they buy Except Neoliberals are literally the ones encouraging consumerism as part of "Muh Freedomz"
>blame people for what they buy Except that's not what's being done here, moron. The criticism is the ideology promoting the "buy buy buy" mentality, wherein a person's very identity is formed by their obsessive need to consume, which is often part and parcel to escapism, a coping mechanism with capitalism's alienating impact on individuals and society as a whole.
>thats going to bring the revolution any dayCriticism of society and bringing attention to the problems of it can bring class consciousness. This argument of "this won't bring the revolution instantly so why bother" is a formal nonsequitur and argument by fallacy, wherein you imply that there is an action that could bring about the revolution, when that's patently false according to any revolutionary theory and goes directly against Marx, Lenin and others in regards to educating and informing the population.
>literally a reaganite <Marxist analysis of capitalist ideology is now Reaganite!<N-no don't call me out for the libertarian lumpen that I am! Debord would laugh in your face.
>inb4 TL;DR and ur mad If you're not going to bother reading a serious answer, don't bother answering. In fact don't even come to this site. We're leftists, writing and reading comprehensive arguments is standard requirement for a conversation here, one that you blatantly fail.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm >>22943>Starting this shit argument againAnon shut the fuck up
And
>>22939Read a damn book.
>>22938 Tired of them.
>>22959stop being a liberal and/or an anarchist any time. as a marxist ill keep making fun of anyone focusing so much on consumption they think theres an objective measure of "too much consumption" that it becomes "consumerism" - also a "bad" thing to do, much like christian sins - or that to be a correct "leftist" you need to buy the right things or barely buy things because obviously individual choices matter and being a leftist is when youre miserable, instead of focusing on production which is what shapes society, like any proper marxist does
>The less you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theatre or to balls, or to the pub, and the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you will be able to save and the greater will become your treasure which neither moth nor rust will corrupt—your capital. The less you are, the less you express your life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated life and the greater is the saving of your alienated being.^ literally marx
>>22963You are the blind imbecile pal
>>22943>the word is often used by conservative retards to guilt-trip people who like anime or video games. Which implies that consumerism is somehow NOT a negative thing and not a cultural product of capitalist material obsession.
>>22964 Never been an ankid or lib.
>as a marxistYou're not a marxist, you're a semi-literate speedreading cretin ignoring the entire prior thread of arguments.
>*snip marx excerpt out of context*>^lItErAlLy MaRxYeah and you do not comprehend what he meant, at all.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/epm/3rd.htm Within the framwork of this manuscript Marx is describing the conditions of the system of Capital current to his time, which was the 19th Century, wherein Capitalists directly repressed workers, rather than modern liberal welfare system which developed specifically because the old school method resulted in protest and revolts. Consumerism was not a thing in Marx's time, as high quality items were primarily for the elites. As he notes, proletarians were minimalistic in what they acquired. This means demand is lower and purchasing power is limited, thus there was a paradigm shift, where cheap previously unavailable items became available to the greater masses.
>ill keep making fun of anyone focusing so much on consumption they think theres an objective measure of "too much consumption"You're an undialectical moron who I doubt even actually read Kapital in full or Debord.
>also a "bad" thing to do, much like christian sinsFalse equivalency, Christianity is a religion and sins are a system of ethical codes based on the time-period's morals and the society it formed in. Anti-consumerism is a part of socialist rejection of capitalist manipulation of people and is based on socio-economic analysis.
>to be a correct "leftist" you need to buy the right things or barely buy things I said neither of these things, shove your strawman up your ass.
>being a leftist is when youre miserable, instead of focusing on production Non-sequitur and strawman. No ethical consumption under capitalism =/= unlimited consumption. There is a difference between consuming because you "like" it and consumption because of escapism caused by alienation.
>>22965You feed the system no matter what until it's abolished as a whole. That's the entire point. It's not about individual choices. You don't know anything about what you're talking about.
You type a lot of trash but I seriously don’t think you’re equipped to understand politics as a set of understandings and interests rather than seeking moral high grounds. You can't even bring up a consistent and unarbitrary definition of consumerism yourself.
The vast majority of self-styled 'communists' truly are bourgeois-sentimentalist moralists.
>>22982 (me)
My point was: consumerism and conservatism are both cringe. That's it. That was my entire point.
I do not take conservative "critiques" of consumerism seriously, they usually reduce to critiquing "muh vidya games" rather than actual commodity fetishism.
>>22981>You feed the system no matter what until it's abolished as a wholeNo shit Sherlock. But like I said, there's a difference between "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and "just consume anything in any quantity or quality it doesn't matter lol!" which disregards Marx's statements on considering quantity and quality of commodities. Again, read Debord.
Consumerism is a form of unhealthy escapism and is in no way helpful, it's literally like an addict buying more and more to feel that high, only instead of narcotics, its consuming media. There is nothing wrong with enjoying arts and music and film, but there's a difference between analyzing and liking an anime and buying merchandise like body-pillows and funko-pops because you're obsessed with it.
>It's not about individual choices. Yes, it is, even if we are limited by the framework of out surroundings.
>You can't even bring up a consistent and unarbitrary definition of consumerism yourself.False, I've remained consistent in my posts ever since my first one on the subject ITT
>>20939 You're just using pretentiously worded ad hominum and addressing NONE of my points.
>The vast majority of self-styled 'communists' truly are bourgeois-sentimentalist moralists.Ah yes, such as yourself, defending the capitalist phenomena of consumerism from criticism as such because you feel called out by posts on the subject. I'd request you take your superficial nonsense and post it to reddit, where it belongs.
>>22982 >>22984>N-no I didn't say this!!! Using CAPS-LOCK and Title formatting proves it!Anon just type normally, I can't take this shit seriously.
>conservatives misapply the term "consumerism" to hide their boomer resentment to new art forms. That's not what you said. If you meant this then you should have worded it better, because otherwise it does in fact sound like liberal hand-wringing, since you only focus on conservatism in your initial post.
>My point was: consumerism and conservatism are both cringe. Fine, like I said, that's not how your initial post reads.
>I do not take conservative "critiques" of consumerism seriouslyThen you need to reassess yourself. Material analysis involves seeing the views, motives and rationale of different ideologies, individuals and cultures.
>>22997>Anon just type normally, I can't take this shit seriously.I'm just tired of people on this bloody site putting words in my mouth and then acting like assholes to me by accusing me of shit and being rude. Really kicks all the desire to have a normal conversation out of the window.
>If you meant this then you should have worded it betterThere's a big difference between "It's just that the word is used by conservatives" and "It's just a word that's used by conservatives." Again, you haven't read my post well and instead wanted to start this petty argument with me instead. You could have at least asked what I meant bx this before making assumptions, I hate when people act like this.
>Material analysis involves seeing the views, motives and rationale of different ideologies, individuals and culturesThat doesn't mean that conservatism isn't a knee-jerk reaction to the progressives' decadence. Yes, I understand why one might become a conservative, just as I understand why one might become alt-right. That doesn't mean these solutions are correct and not just "I support the opposite of the current thing."
As all of you may know, only anarcho-egoism is correct and everything else is wrong. >>23004 (me)
Also, when people try to backpedal by starting to mock me because they're too afraid to admit that they're wrong it pisses me off even further. Like, admit that you're fucking wrong so we can just move on from this and never bring this up again, it's not a big deal.
>>23004>I'm just tired of people on this bloody site putting words in my mouth and then acting like assholes to me by accusing me of shit and being rude. Anon… this is an imageboard which evolved from a group that broke off from /pol/ and other boards of 4chan/8chan because we liked anonymous forum posting but were tired of retards shitting themselves about communism. It's still a fairly abrasive community because the expectation is to either have thick skin and ignore or take your lumps and engage back. I only called out what appeared to be apologia for a bourg mentality, and thus I was more hostile than a typical argument.
>There's a big difference between It's not as big a difference as you think; as I said the majority of your post sounds like a work around, 'admitting' it's a thing but appearing to try to justify ignoring or defending it, by bringing up one-sided information. Conservatives are not the only ones who criticize consumerism. If you had expanded (literally a sentence more) on the actual aspects of consumerism and THEN added on the comment of "keep in mind reactionaries…" as an addendum, then your post would be more balanced.
>you haven't read my post well and instead wanted to start this petty argument with me instead False and no.
>ou could have at least asked what I meant bx this before making assumptions Stop trying to blame this all on me. This isn't a professional discussion forum, it's an informal shitposting site. Even the moderators don't ask for clarification on posts before deleting them. As I explained, your wording was suspect and so received the response it garnered.
>That doesn't mean these solutions are correct and not just "I support the opposite of the current thing."That also doesn't necessarily mean that you don't support something just because there are others you dislike that support it, that's partisan contrarianism.
>>23012>It's still a fairly abrasive community because the expectation is to either have thick skin and ignore or take your lumps and engage backThat's no excuse to pick fights over some miscommunication. This entire argument came out of nothing: you imagined in your head that I somehow disagree with you just because you have problems understanding language. Why is it hard for you to admit that your assumption was wrong?
>appearing to try to justify ignoring or defending itThe key word is "appearing." Because it's you projecting your assumptions. I simply distinguished between consumerism as a concept and "consoomerism" as a smear or moral posturing.
>Conservatives are not the only ones who criticize consumerismNo shit,
I CRITICIZE CONSUMERISM.>If you had expanded (literally a sentence more) on the actual aspects of consumerism and THEN added on the comment of "keep in mind reactionaries…" as an addendumHow the hell could I have predicted that some random person I wasn't even talking to would misunderstand me?
>That also doesn't necessarily mean that you don't support something just because there are others you dislike that support itDoesn't mean that you have to completely agree on the subject matter with the other side either, you don't have to hold conservative views to oppose consumerism.
Why are you doing this?
>>23014 (me)
Argument over the meaning of a sentence. Peak political discourse.
Is this how being on Ben Shapiro's conference feels like? I hate Ben Shapiro now, Ben Shapiro does not deserve to live.
>>23014>That's not excuseQuit complaining, you certainly weren't de-escalating with your Capslock.
>This entire argument came out of nothing Yes, because I told you to shut up and stop reviving a derailing dead debate from months ago.
>you imagined in your head that I somehow disagree with you just because you have problems understanding language I understand language fine, language is fluid and your meaning did not come across as you may have meant it.
>Why is it hard for you to admit that your assumption was wrong? Why is it hard for you to admit that your sentence was open for interpretation given its context?
>appearing <projecting your assumptions That's not how projection or appearance works; Context is important - your response, in the context of the prior debate on the topic - makes your sentence sound apologetic for consumerism with "muh conservatism" appearing as an excuse. If you meant otherwise then I am sorry, but again, do not dump all the blame onto me here, this isn't a professional debate.
>I simply distinguished between consumerism as a concept and "consoomerism" as a smear or moral posturing. Fine, good.
>How the hell could I have predicted that some random person I wasn't even talking to would misunderstand me? You responded to a post that is in turn responding to my post
>>21669 and I only told you to quit continuing the direction of conversation, which you did not. Furthermore I'm literally the OP of the thread so I keep tabs on it.
>Doesn't mean that you have to completely agree on the subject matter with the other side either, you don't have to hold conservative views to oppose consumerism.Correct
>Why are you doing this? It's a conversation, if you're tired of it you don't need to reply or just say you're done.
>>23017>Quit complaining, you certainly weren't de-escalating with your Capslock.>I told you to shut upYou could have asked me NICELY and I wouldn't have gotten pissed off.
>Why is it hard for you to admit that your sentence was open for interpretation given its context?Because I thought that I've seperated the two parts of my sentence well enough for them to not be confused with each other. I deliberately tried to avoid the interpretation you've just made. And writing an entire definition of consumerism is just overkill when I just wanted to quickly respond to a person who seems to equate consumerism with moralism. Maybe I could've used different wording but I do not think one needs an entire definition of a concept to understand a simple response message.
>I only told you to quit continuing the direction of conversation, which you did notI did, I simply thought it's silly to prohibit people talking to each other. Which you seemed to do when I responded to the other guy. I didn't actually want to start an argument, I was simply joking. Sorry if it came out rude (not for the Caps Lock though, I was genuinely pissed off by this point) but that's simply outside of my control unless I'll have to attach /jk like a fucking redditor.
>>23019*wild confusion*
>>23018>You could have asked me NICELY and I wouldn't have gotten pissed off.Fair enough, but again, it's fairly standard here.
>writing an entire definition of consumerism is just overkill Fair point in normal discourse, but imageboards are, by default, quite tense and antagonistic, so details like that will get misunderstood. I think of it as being similar to being in the hood, you watch what you say and if you say something, you make yourself absolutely clear, otherwise SOMEONE is going to have a problem with you.
>I simply thought it's silly to prohibit people talking to each other 1) It was off topic as is
2) I already knew that re-engaging the debate was going to result in srach, and I was hoping to cut it off before it gained steam. Instead I ended up being the catalyst.
>unless I'll have to attach /jk like a fucking redditor. LOL, nah no worries, we've reached an understanding, and nobody was harmed in the process. Peace.
>>23021>srachThat's a very Slavic word. I notice there are a lot of Russians here for some reason.
>>23019>just thinking consumerism exists is moralist, doesnt mean its the same thing as moralism *shrugs*It's like saying that criticizing capitalism is moralist. It's not a moral failing of consumerists, rather it's something that takes the enjoyment of life away from us, just like capitalism does. If you don't view this as a problem then fine, do what thou wilt. But on my personal level, it is a problem. A problem that I suffer from also, I also try to numb my brain in mindless entertainment. That brings me neither joy nor satisfaction, rather, it leaves me as a husk.
>>23022Piss off and stop being a snowflake about it, you knew you were derailing and you escalated the situation, don't pretend to be on a high horse here.
>>23023 Stop being obtuse, consumerism =/= consumption. This has been repeated ITT like 3 times; It's not the actual act of consumption, but an ideology surrounding the act.
>Consumerism is the PREOCCUPATION of society with the acquisition of consumer goods. >Consumerism is an ideology that is pushed by capitalism to encourage greed and commodification and is not the same thing as consumption in and of itself, which is what consumerism exploits to direct the population and propagandize them, exploiting their societal alienation. >By the very fact of media and commodities and personal property existing and being acquirable, people consume something. However that is an action that occurs as part of living and social interaction, not an ideological act. >>22965>>22997>>23012>>23017>>23026We see here the nature of morality: it condemns only excesses, never the thing itself. Thus profit is permitted, but greed is forbidden; small businesses are fine, but big ones are not. Workers reproducing their labor via wage labor through the consumption of commodities is good, but buying the "wrong" commodities or "too many" is bad. You can see pretty easily how this corresponds to the conditions for petty-bourgeois emancipation.
Luckily, even in advance of communism we can self-flagellate over our naughty consumption habits and fantasize about how badly everyone’s consumption will be restricted when the (surely imminent!) revolution happens - which has little to do with an actual Marxist class focus on production.
It's fun when people debate whether their layman's understanding of marxism justifies their consumption habits vs. whether it justifies their puritan self-denial. It's moralism all the way down.
>>22984>commodity fetishismOne of the most important concepts advanced by Marx and I'm begging leftoids to understand that Marx used the term "fetish" to argue "commodities behave like little gods in how they seem to command men" and not as some sort of moral attack.
The term commodity fetishism isn't meant to scold people for liking things. It describes the fact that in capitalism we don't relate to each other as humans asking each other to do things, but rather indirectly command each other through commodities.
If I go to a restaurant, I don't beg or threaten or whatever the cook to make me a meal and the waiter to deliver it. I just buy the meal. The meal itself then appears to command them to move, like a little god. It's about obscuring processes of production.
>>23056 >Posts cite marx and the communist critique of consumerist ideology<U-ure all moralistsLMAO, like clockwork.
>it condemns only excesses, never the thing itself.Meaningless and fallacious statement. The idea of too much of a good thing is bad has existed for centuries.
>profit is permitted, but greed is forbidden >small businesses are fine, but big ones are not.Said by nobody in this thread, particularly the posts you reference.
>Workers reproducing their labor via wage labor through the consumption of commodities is good, but buying the "wrong" commodities or "too many" is bad Strawman fallacy, nobody said this.
>You can see pretty easily how this corresponds to the conditions for petty-bourgeois emancipation. Well when you create a false equivalency ridden, fallacious strawmen, of course it "makes sense"… in a vacuum.
>we can self-flagellate over our naughty consumption habits and fantasize about how badly everyone’s consumption will be restricted Another strawman.
Everyone that invokes the "moralism" boogie-man is automatically a pseud, like (you)rself, because, as usual, the entire argument is based on fallacious and deliberate misinterpretation of posts that rightly critique an ideological facet of modern capitalism… primarily because they feel called out for being lumpen theorylets that pretend to be communist but in reality would never want to give up clearly harmful aspects of their decadent bohemian lifestyle that is endemic to first-world radical liberals.
I repeat for the mentally ill such as yourself; Consumption =/= consumerism.
Now quit derailing the thread and go back to your anarchist threads.
>>23532 (me)
Also, I think the problem with Kazuma is that he's downright annoying instead of being just a goofy perverted NEETcel who doesn't shower and is therefor just boring to watch.
Diogenes was the first perverted NEETcel who doesn't shower, change my mind.
>>23534Diogenes was a hikkineet who didn't even want to quit his home (a cracked pot in the middle of the road)
too based for this world
>>24950 (me)
The Mathew Pattel hair bangs are spot on though.
>>24995 They stated
"Is Tomoko the DEFINITION of a femcel" by which they're saying that Tomoko's characterization fits said definition. This is fairly obvious.
>>24989 'She' is an illustrated character who is of whatever age the illustrator or author intends her to be. She is not being pornographically described, nor is there unspoilered pornography, so how does being a "child" have anything to do with "being a femcel" you hysterical twat? If you see or hear the mention of a young character, and automatically think "sex" buddy, you need to get help. We call under-age /pol/fags incels, is this suddenly wrong because they're not actually 18? or 17? Take meds and fuck off.
>>23033Imageboards are on par with Reddit in absurdity.
All the whining they do about Reddit and they act just like them with the excessive banning for "wrongthink" and inceldom
>>25041I didn't think she's a femcel but now that I think about the definition of an incel she is indeed celibate involuntarily. That means that /pol/tards are also incels since it's the "involuntary" part that counts.
>later she ends up with a yuri haremIs this otaku pandering?
>>25041>well actually no you need to be this age to be thisOnce again, age sensitivity is the new discriminator.
Its nornal to be sibgle at 15 but its also normal to be in a relationships.
People think childhood and adulthood are spiritually aprallel when theyre not.
Inceldom is more a pre-disposition than anything.
>>25036Femcel is an aping of incel, as in involuntarily celibate, however the term's usage has become synonymous to "being a loser with no life" which precludes sexual opportunity.
>>25041 Actually link to the post you respond to.
>I don't think a 17 years old /pol/tard can be an incel Yet people on this site constantly use it, to the point that the term "/pol/cel" is used, and incel is almost always in regards to people of teen/youth age, because of burger social dynamics and the stigma of not losing your virginity before 18 or 21 or whatever.
>It's like claiming that a baby is a cripple because it can't walk yet.1) False equivalency
2) I agree that the term is abused, but it is an obvious, hyperbolic shitpost, not LITERALLY calling Tomoko a femcel in the sense that she doesn't have sex.
>>25156>coming of age yuri solThat sounds terrifying.
>would you rather have her develop into a 50 year old hikkikomori with 80 year old parents and die alone?No, I'd rather have psychological drama about a 30-something hikkikomori who's struggling with depression and slowly trying to escape her miserable existence. And I've seen exactly zero anime and manga which are like that. Even Rent-a-Girlfriend is a wish fulfillment comedy romcom, I expected so, so much more from it. YOU DISAPPOINT ME ONCE AGAIN, JAPS!!
>there's already a lot of serious discussion about that in japanese mediaMan, are Japs so fragile. It reminds me of that right-wing talking point of "Games shouldn't be political," even though video games are a unique storytelling device to discuss certain important issues in such depth that isn't possible in a news article. In the West we have Deus Ex, the most sophisticated popular game in terms of raising political issues, and people loved it so what's the matter with Japan then?
>>25161>30-something hikkikomori who's struggling with depression and slowly trying to escape her miserable existenceNHK ni Youkoso…?
>so what's the matter with Japan then?Japanese culture is heavily adverse to discussing about politics openly. They see it as incredibly rude. At least they're consistent and whatever label a Japanese person applies to themself chances are they will avoid bringing up anything remotely political, unlike most countries where the "apolitical centrists" are the most vocal about their ideology.
>>25190>NHK ni Youkoso…?Isn't that a sitcom?
>Japanese culture is heavily adverse to discussing about politics openly. They see it as incredibly rude.Another aspect of the Japanese being incredibly repressed and boring people. I will never be a Wapanese. Even if anime is based, Japan sucks, JAPAN SUCKS!!
Tell me that Osakans are based at least, I have such high hopes for the Kansai region…
>>25190I prefer that. Politics is so shallow amd addicting.
People survived for centuries withput needing to delve deep into it.
When commonfolk were literal componemts to their line of work, there was no time for people to talk about politics daily.
>>25205>Politics is so shallow amd addicting.Depends on the politics. And no, politics isn't when you constantly say "Capitalism bad," "Orange man bad" or "Patriarchy bad." Deus Ex was more subtle. But yeah, modern politics in art are shallow because zoomer progressives ruin everything they touch.
>People survived for centuries withput needing to delve deep into it.Politics in art are a form of Situationist rebellion against le modern world. I'd argue that our world would have been much more shallow without it, and looking at modern day Japan, their life is pretty miserable already with all those bullshit rules imposed upon them. Sure, politics in art won't necessarily strike revolts but at least they make you think about your life, something your average salaryman is forbidden to do. I support art that makes you think thoughts, we need more thinking in our society. Not preaching, thinking. Huge difference.
Also, art is a good form of education in general. I know some people are critical of pop science but it's still one of the most engaging ways to teach science that ever existed.
>>748I like the first one, it makes perfect sense.
The second one is Tomoko when the series changes into a harem slice of life.
>>25190>Japanese culture is heavily adverse to discussing about politics openly. They see it as incredibly rude. At least they're consistent and whatever label a Japanese person applies to themself chances are they will avoid bringing up anything remotely political, unlike most countries where the "apolitical centrists" are the most vocal about their ideology.that's not entirely accurate. they don't talk about it in regular conversation, but there's a lot more public discussion of specific issues rather than political groups per se compared to the west. this focus does have problems of its own (like maintaining ldp hegemony) but my impression is that the japanese have actually named, described and tackled more social phenomena than the west. to go back to the hikkikomori classification as an example, i still haven't seen that much discussion of hikkikomori and associated social illnesses in america despite the fact that it's extremely common there as well. meanwhile japan has been monitoring them, training social workers, and giving updates on their situation. same thing with the long hours workers are facing in japan, vs the long hours workers are facing in america. the latter has only began the discussion reluctantly in the past decade while the former has been aware of the problem for quite a while even if they haven't done that much to fix it.
>>25191i get what you mean now. i don't remember the transition feeling sudden for my taste, but i can see why parts of the story might seem a bit too sweet for the average watamote fan
>>25207>zoomer progressives ruin everythingSee what i mean?
You cannot go without gen pol.
As if though Millennials are any better either. They started the whole current year progressive stuff.
>Politics in art are a form of Situationist rebellion against le modern world. I'd argue that our world would have been much more shallow without it, and looking at modern day Japan, their life is pretty miserable already with all those bullshit rules imposed upon them. Sure, politics in art won't necessarily strike revolts but at least they make you think about your life, something your average salaryman is forbidden to do. I support art that makes you think thoughts, we need more thinking in our society. Not preaching, thinking. Huge difference.Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo youre spaking.
Again this is what Im talking about.
All you do is argue abstractions that have no direct bearing on you.
>>25216>You cannot go without gen pol.I was complaining about not the progressive brand of zoomers (who can be any brand of progressives) but about the zoomer brand of progressivism which got spread thanks to the rise of the parasocial media, Zoomers can be quite based, it's the zoomers who are more open to modern music genres such as modern metalcore and drift phonk, Gen X'ers are more likely to have a "GET OFF MY LAWN!!" attitude when it comes to modern music because of its sleak production or whatever.
But you're right about millenials, I'm not disagreeing. I'm a zoomer myself so I'm allowed to criticize my own cohort, am I not? It's not like I'm adultist or anything.
>>25216>Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo youre spaking.Just saying that art can be educational and rebellious and saying that it shouldn't be is arguably only limiting the creativity of a person. Muh freedom of expression.
I'm not saying that all art should provoke some DEEP THOUGHTS in your brain but there's literally nothing wrong with it and the Japs are simply being too puritan here imho. Heck, Ghost in the Shell already rises some philosophical themes already so clearly the Japs understand that, it's just that the politics are excluded because "philosophy good, politics bad" I guess.
>>25428It having a single season helps alot.
Quality shows have like 3 seasons max, the less season a show has the better it is most of the time
>>25429it was one of the first "she is literally me" shows where the """male""" audience (eggs) could self-insert as the female protagonist
+ incest elements, tomoko and her brother were the original… what's the name of the couple from zoomer the incest game? they were that except significantly more pathetic, horny and funny
>>26347Fuck this picture is so good
I bet her skin is extra warm from blushing
>>26722>Anyone still reading the manga ?Yes, it's great.
>Has she kissed…a girl yet ?No, but she's got a harem of girls.
>>26718I wish this was real
I would hold her so tight
>>26938I only have one more but I'll go look for the rest after work
I got them from r/watamote
>>26949IRL femcels are fuckin nasty
I knew one and she smelled like shit 24/7.
>>26952Nah this was like 15 years ago
Plus she was crazy so I dodged a bullet back then
>>26938Heres a couple more
This is the profile of the guy that makes them, theres a bunch more in there
https://www.reddit.com/user/Rozen503 >>27007She has a lesbian harem, you never had a chance lmao.
Now cry, motherfucker.
>>27036My goofy rizz would get her, and i am my own Bvll boy.
>>27037No, if you want it you must take my BBC, it's hidden in that place, you just have to find it !
>>27039all woman can't resist the silly Rizz, its facts.
>>27138me too
I bet her skin is soft. Or like kinda dry but thats ok too
Unique IPs: 102